CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.
Literary and Cultural Writeups .
A Sunday on La Grande Jatte
by Georges Seurat
Georges Seurat was a French Post-Impressionist who pioneered Neo-Impressionism and the technique of Pointillism. Born in Paris, he studied at the École des Beaux-Arts and became fascinated by optical science and colour theory. Rather than blending pigment, he applied tiny, distinct dots of complementary colour side by side, allowing the viewer’s eye to mix them.
Georges Seurat's most celebrated work,"A Sunday on La Grande Jatte (1884–86)" , housed at the Art Institute of Chicago, took two years to complete and epitomises his methodical, almost scientific approach. Though he died aged just thirty-one, his systematic style profoundly influenced modern art. The 7 large, exhibition paintings Seurat considered his main works:
1. Bathers at Asnières :Une Baignade, Asnières_ (1884): 2.06m x 3m - National Gallery, London
2. A Sunday on La Grande Jatte : Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte (1884-1886):
2.07m x 3.08m : Art Institute of Chicago.
3. Les Poseuses / The Models (1886-1888):
2m x 2.5m : Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia
4. Parade de cirque : Circus Sideshow (1887-1888):
0.99m x 1.49m : Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
5. Le Chahut (1889-1890) : 1.70m x 1.41m : Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo, Netherlands
6. Young Woman Powdering Herself : Jeune femme se poudrant (1889-1890) : 0.95m x 0.79m : Courtauld Gallery, London
7. The Circus : Le Cirque (1890-1891) : Unfinished at his death, aged 31 : 1.85m x 1.52m : Musée d'Orsay, Paris
A Sunday on La Grande Jatte
Saw his painting ,"A Sunday on La Grande Jatte"
in original inside the Art Institute of Chicago. It's huge , about 7 x 10 feet, which is why it fills the whole wall like that. It has been in the permanent collection there since 1926, in the Helen Birch Bartlett Memorial Collection. In the museum it's usually hung in Gallery 240.
Painted 1884-1886, it's the painting that invented Pointillism. Seurat didn't mix colors on a palette , he placed millions of tiny, distinct dots of pure color side by side. Up close it's just dots, from a distance your eye mixes them into that sunny riverbank.
A few things about ,"A Sunday on La Grande Jatte":
The technique is called Neo-Impressionism / Pointillism.Seurat was obsessed with colour theory and optics. That border of blue, orange and red dots around the frame is painted by him too.
It's Paris on a Sunday afternoon.The island of La Grande Jatte on the Seine river. Everyone from the working-class man in the orange shirt lying in the grass at bottom left, to the fashionable woman with the monkey on a leash on the right.
It's perfectly composed. One needs to see how almost everyone is in profile, like Egyptian friezes, and how still everything feels , even the dog. Seurat wanted modern life to feel timeless.
It took him two years and dozens of oil sketches. When he showed it in 1886, it shocked everyone and made him famous ; he was only 26.
( Avtar Mota )
UTILITY IS THE NEW VALUE SYSTEM
We live in an age that worships utility. Everything is measured, like fruit by its juice, by what it yields. Education is valued if it delivers a job, like a key is valued only if it opens a vault. Religion is valued if it delivers peace of mind, like a pill is valued for sleep. A relationship is valued if it delivers advantage, like a contact is valued for reach. Even virtue is valued if it delivers brand equity, like charity is valued for a photograph. The very language of value has changed. From sacred to profitable. From true to useful.
Classical civilisation asked a vertical question: does this thing participate in something higher than itself? Modern civilisation asks a horizontal question: what does this thing produce next? When usefulness becomes the only measure of worth, man himself becomes a tool. He is valuable only as long as he is useful. Love becomes networking. Learning becomes skilling. Leisure becomes productivity. Life becomes a permanent performance review.
Upanishadic Clarity
It is this anxiety that Upanishadic thought interrupts. It begins precisely where utility ends.
The Isha Upanishad opens with a declaration that destroys the entire economics of ownership: "Isha vasyam idam sarvam yat kincha jagatyam jagat". All that moves in this moving world is enveloped by Brahman. Nothing is outside. Nothing is unclaimed by that One Consciousness. Then it gives an impossible instruction: "tena tyaktena bhunjitha" . Enjoy through renunciation.
This is not a moral sermon. It is pure metaphysics. It says enjoyment is not possible through possession. Possession tightens, guards, fears loss. It suffocates the object and the possessor alike. Only when you renounce the claim of mine does the thing return to you, not as property but as Prasada, as grace.
Why does the Upanishad say this? Because it has seen that Atman and Brahman are one. If all is one, the very structure of possession collapses. Possession requires two: a possessor and a possessed. If duality is Maya, if separation is illusion, then ownership is the first illusion. Hence the searing question: "ma gridhah kasyasvid dhanam" . Whose is wealth that you should covet? To say mine is to affirm ignorance.
In this vision, service is not social work. It is not charity from a higher to a lower. It is correction of vision. When you serve, you are not being good to another person. You are remembering who you are. "Tat tvam asi". Thou art that. To feed another is to feed yourself in a deeper body.
Buddha's and Nagarjuna's Clarity
The Buddha carries this realisation forward with ruthless compassion. He said, if you knew what I know about the power of giving, you would not let a single meal pass without sharing it in some way.
For the Buddha, sacrifice is not noble sentiment. It is intelligence. The root of dukkha is Tanha, craving. The I wants to accumulate because it believes it is incomplete. Every act of genuine giving is surgery upon that craving.
Nagarjuna takes this to its final logical end. He says there is not the slightest difference between Samsara and Nirvana. The giver, the gift and the receiver are all Shunya, empty of inherent existence. Therefore true Dhaana happens only when there is no giver left to be proud.
The Atheist and Albert Camus
The atheist and Albert Camus arrive at the same abyss from the opposite side.
Atheistic existentialism denies Brahman. It says there is no cosmic Self, no divine plan, no afterlife accounting. Man is thrown into a world that does not explain itself. Camus called this the Absurd: our desperate hunger for meaning colliding with a silent universe. His answer was not suicide, not hope, but revolt. In "The Myth of Sisyphus", Camus says we must imagine Sisyphus happy. Why? Because even if the rock will roll down again, the act of pushing it together, the solidarity in the struggle, creates value where none was given.
Camus writes: In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer. That invincible summer is not given by unseen power. It is created by fidelity to others without reward. His doctor in "The Plague" works without believing in heaven, risking his life simply because it is the only decent thing to do.
This is the striking convergence. The Upanishad says give because all is Brahman. The Buddha says give because the self is empty. Camus says give even though there is no Brahman, no self, no meaning: give because in a meaningless world, generosity is your revolt against meaninglessness.
Atheism removes the metaphysical guarantee but cannot remove the metaphysical result: the more you cling for utility, the emptier you become; the more you give without utility, the more real you become.
Utility asks, what will I gain? That is the language of the market, of expediency, of the absurd man who has not yet rebelled. Dharma asks, what will remain of the I when I have given all? The Upanishad answers: That remainder is Brahman. Camus would answer: That remainder is freedom.
( Avtar Mota )
Firaq Gorakhpuri and the Immeasurable Expanse of Upanishadic Brahman
"Koyi meri aankhon se dekhta, teri bazm e naaz ki wusatein
Woh har ek gosha makaan makaan, woh har ek lamha zaman zaman"
Translation:
(If someone could see through my eyes, the expanse of your assembly of grace
They would find every corner to be a whole universe, every moment to be a whole eternity)
Commentary
This couplet is from Gule Nagma, the immortal poetic composition of Firaq Gorakhpuri, and it establishes beyond doubt that Firaq is the torch bearer of profound concepts of Indic civilisation in Urdu Ghazal. In a tradition often coloured by Persian imagery, Firaq brings the vision of the Upanishads and the Bhagwad Gita into the Urdu verse with unmatched grace.Firaq brings Shiva who drank poison, Nal Damyanti, Ahilya, Shakuntala , Sri Krishna and Sri Rama into his Gazal.
Equally fluent in Hindi and Urdu, Persian and Sanskrit, he incorporated elements from his deep, self-taught knowledge of the Vedic and Puranic ethos into his poetry. Influenced by Vedic and Vedantic thought, he viewed nature not as a detached backdrop, but as an extension of human emotion and divine energy.Through these metaphors, Firaq proved that Hinduism and Indian philosophy were organic to his identity and poetry, creating an inclusive, composite cultural matrix that permanently expanded the boundaries of Urdu literature.
On the surface it appears as a lover speaking to the beloved, yet in truth Firaq is engaged in a devotional description of Brahman as understood in the Upanishads. He uses the imagery of ishq to articulate what the sages called ananta. When he says koi meri aankhon se dekhta, he is invoking drishti, the Upanishadic principle that reality is not seen by the eye but through a consciousness purified by love. The seer and the seen become one. This is precisely what the Upanishads describe as Tat Tvam Asi.
Teri bazm e naaz ki wusaten is not merely a gathering. It is the cosmic expanse, the chidakasha, the infinite field of Brahman where all existence assembles. Its wusat or vastness cannot be measured by space because it contains space itself.
The second line reveals his Vedantic realisation. Wo har ek gosha makan makan means every particle contains the whole. This is the great truth that the macrocosm resides in the microcosm, that Brahman is "anu se anu and mahan se mahan" . Wo har ek lamha zaman zaman dissolves time into timelessness. In Brahman every moment is eternity, the akala tattva.
This vision attains its most majestic illustration in the Bhagavad Gita when Sri Krishna reveals his Virat Swaroopa to Arjuna in chapter eleven. Arjuna, granted divya drishti, beholds the entire cosmos within the divine form. He sees countless mouths and eyes, infinite suns blazing together, all gods and all beings, the whole of creation with its birth and dissolution contained within one boundless body. He cries that space itself trembles before this form which has no beginning, no middle and no end. This is exactly what Firaq describes. Every gosha is indeed makan makan and every lamha is zaman zaman. Thus Firaq proves that Urdu ghazal can carry the eternal light of Indic civilisation and that love itself becomes the path to realising the Virat.
( Avtar Mota )